Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7

In February 2019, EDO (as EDO NSW) secured a landmark legal victory, with the refusal of the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine in the New South Wales Upper Hunter region. A key factor in the win was the mine's potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.^[1]

Bylong Coal Project (SSD 6367)

EDO (as EDO NSW) represented local community group, the Bylong Valley Protection Alliance, in opposing the 6.5 million tonnes-per-year open cut and underground mine – which would have been built in an area known for its scenic beauty and agricultural productivity. The Independent Planning Commission found that the proposed mine would have unacceptable impacts on groundwater and that the area could not be restored with the same scenic, heritage and natural values after the mine had closed.

Significantly, the panel cited the Rocky Hill case in its decision, describing the emissions from the mine's coal as 'problematical'. It said the mine was not in the public interest because it was contrary to the principles of intergenerational equity.^[2]

The Environment Centre Northern Territory v The Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority and Anor

In a legal first in 2019, the Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT), represented by the EDO (as EDO NT), challenged a permit to allow the clearing of more than 20,000 hectares of Northern Territory native vegetation at Maryfield Station, including on climate change grounds. The successful case demonstrates the community's ability to hold governments to account for their decisions.^[3]

Ralphs Bay Tasmania

From 2008 to 2010, EDO (as EDO Tasmania) represented community group, Save Ralphs Bay Inc, against a proposed 460-lot canal housing and marina development in a conservation area at Lauderdale. This would have been the first canal estate proposal in Tasmania.

Mackay Conservation Group Vs Commonwealth of Australia

In 2015, EDO (as EDO NSW) successfully challenged the Federal Government's approval of Adani's Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland, on behalf of the Mackay Conservation Group (MCG).The case was won over the Federal Environment Minister's failure to take into account the approved conservation advice for the Yakka Skink and the Ornamental Snake. With the consent of the parties, the Court set aside the decision of the Minister because his decision was legally flawed. MCG also alleged that the Federal Environment Minister failed to properly consider the impact of the Carmichael mine on the Great Barrier Reef when he approved the project.^[4]

Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd

Acting on behalf of client Humane Society International – Australia (HSI), EDO (as EDO NSW) first took action against Japanese whaling company Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (Kyodo) in 2004, to stop it from whaling in breach of Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

Kyodo owned ships that conducted whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary for the Japanese Whale Research program. There was evidence that Kyodo had killed 3,558 minke whales and 13 fin whales since 2000/2001, with most of those killings taking place in the Sanctuary. The evidence also indicated that Kyodo intended to start taking humpback whales in the 2007/2008 season.

This was a complex case run over several court appearances to establish the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and the right of HSI to serve documents on Kyodo. In 2008, EDO secured a victory when the Federal Court declared that Kyodo was breaching the EPBC Act. The Court granted an injunction to restrain Kyodo from further breaches. HSI representatives travelled to Japan to serve the injunction on Kyodo. But Japan didn't comply with that injunction and continued what it described as 'scientific' whaling in the Sanctuary between 2008 and 2013.